Travesty unfolding in Kavanaugh Hearing

[brtransplant]

Memory lapses...

There's a Facebook post going around claiming that Ruth Ginsberg has said she would resign if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Something to the effect that she refuses to be in the same room "as that man." Oh, if only this was true! Unfortunately, it's nothing but wishful thinking by good Americans.

I do think Ruthie should retire.

If she retires while President Trump is in office, there is literally no telling what we'll see out of the lunes left.

[dawg80]

I've been doing a little reading on Ginsberg. Interestingly she is critical of Roe v. Wade, not because it legalized murdering innocent babies, but because it established as the basis for "abortion rights" in the court, rather than via a true democratic process. Ginsberg wrote, in 2003, that there was a national movement in state legislatures and in federal law making, toward legalizing abortion and given more time abortion would have become the law of the land by way of the democratic process.

That is not a liberal view of the judicial system, per se. But, she has voted to uphold abortion whenever it has come before the SC. On all those numerous cases involving laws passed in various states, like Texas' partial-birth law, she has voted in favor of unlimited, unbridled murder of babies. And that is why the libs will lose their pea brain minds when she leaves the SC. I can't wait!

[frogdog]

They do not want any one who will vote based on cases based solely on the Constitution. If abortion is so important then pass an admenment get the votes and add it, oh thats right the cannot get the votes so they want to use the judicial branch to to by default make law and dilute the constitution with their own desires for how the liberals see the world.

[Guisslapp]

They do not want any one who will vote based on cases based solely on the Constitution. If abortion is so important then pass an admenment get the votes and add it, oh thats right the cannot get the votes so they want to use the judicial branch to to by default make law and dilute the constitution with their own desires for how the liberals see the world.

There is such an amendment - the 14th Amendment. Conservatives are hoping that courts will ignore states’ attempts to infringe a woman’s right of liberty without due process of law. And, ironically, they want to insert the government into the private, woman-physician relationship.

[detltu]

There is such an amendment - the 14th Amendment. Conservatives are hoping that courts will ignore states’ attempts to infringe a woman’s right of liberty without due process of law. And, ironically, they want to insert the government into the private, woman-physician relationship.

You are good at creating these straw men.

I will echo what dawg80 said and say thanks for sticking around and putting up with this nonsense. It is interesting to have a conversation with people who disagree.

[Guisslapp]

This is no straw man. The 14th Amendment has always been the reason that states can’t ban abortions. It infringes liberty without due process.

[johnnylightnin]

There is such an amendment - the 14th Amendment. Conservatives are hoping that courts will ignore states’ attempts to infringe a woman’s right of liberty without due process of law. And, ironically, they want to insert the government into the private, woman-physician relationship.

#ironic

[dawg80]

Feinstein is giving her anti-Kavanaugh speech and said that Roe protects: marriage rights, where Americans can choose to send their kids to school, who we choose to be our doctor, in addition to abortion rights. I admit I did not know about those other rights being protected by Roe. Are they?

And of course Feinstein got into the anti-2nd Amendment fervor.

[detltu]

This is no straw man. The 14th Amendment has always been the reason that states can’t ban abortions. It infringes liberty without due process.

You would be correct except for that whole "deprive any person of life" part.

It's a straw man because that is not what the republicans want to do and you know it. They don't care about the woman-physician relationship. Not even the evil republicans want to interject in the woman-physician relationship. They certainly don't want to infringe a woman's right to liberty. They simply want to preserve the life and liberty of the unborn. I get that you disagree, but this is a textbook straw man. The question is whether murder should be an included liberty or allowed if your doctor agrees to help out. At least from the republican/right/conservative perspective.

[dawg80]

This is no straw man. The 14th Amendment has always been the reason that states can’t ban abortions. It infringes liberty without due process.

Wow! so the 14th Amendment protects someone's right to commit murder?

[Guisslapp]

You would be correct except for that whole "deprive any person of life" part.

It's a straw man because that is not what the republicans want to do and you know it. They don't care about the woman-physician relationship. Not even the evil republicans want to interject in the woman-physician relationship. They certainly don't want to infringe a woman's right to liberty. They simply want to preserve the life and liberty of the unborn. I get that you disagree, but this is a textbook straw man. The question is whether murder should be an included liberty or allowed if your doctor agrees to help out. At least from the republican/right/conservative perspective.

You can always amend the constitution to say “person or fetus”. Otherwise there is only one being that has a 14th Amendment right - the person.

[Guisslapp]

Wow! so the 14th Amendment protects someone's right to commit murder?

Murder is defined as the “killing of another person” with malice aforethought.

[detltu]

Wow! so the 14th Amendment protects someone's right to commit murder?

Of course not. If a woman wants to kill her unborn child, she certainly can. She will get her due process when she is tried for murder after the fact.

The doctor-patient relationship is completely bogus as well. Your doctor can't sell you cocaine even if they think it might help you. They also can't help you kill your husband or child without consequence. You're still entitled to due process if you do though.

[detltu]

You can always amend the constitution to say “person or fetus”. Otherwise there is only one being that has a 14th Amendment right - the person.

Don't need to. Person covers it perfectly fine.

[Guisslapp]

Don't need to. Person covers it perfectly fine.

Fetuses aren’t counted as “persons” in other Consitutional contexts, e.g., the census.

There is no evidence anywhere that framers intended the use of the word person to cover fetuses in how the word is used in the Constitution.